The National Citizen Survey

Transcription

1 T OWN OF H OOKSETT, NH Valmont Road, Suite North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO Washington, DC ICMA

2 Contents Survey Background... 1 About... 1 Understanding the Results... 3 Executive Summary... 5 Community Ratings... 7 Overall Community Quality... 7 Community Design... 9 Transportation... 9 Housing Land Use and Zoning Economic Sustainability Public Safety Environmental Sustainability Recreation and Wellness Parks and Recreation Culture, Arts and Education Health and Wellness Community Inclusiveness Civic Engagement Civic Activity Information and Awareness Social Engagement Public Trust Town of Hooksett Employees From Data to Action Resident Priorities Town of Hooksett Action Chart Using Your Action Chart Custom Questions Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies Frequencies Excluding Don t Know Responses Frequencies Including Don t Know Responses Appendix B: Survey Methodology Appendix C: Survey Materials... 94

3 Survey Background A B O U T T H E N A T I O N A L C I T I Z E N S U R V E Y (The NCS) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The NCS was developed by NRC to provide a statistically valid survey of resident opinions about community and services provided by local government. The survey results may be used by staff, elected officials and other stakeholders for community planning and resource allocation, program improvement and policy making. FIGURE 1: THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY METHODS AND GOALS Survey Objectives Assessment Methods Identify community strengths and weaknesses Identify service strengths and weaknesses Multi-contact mailed survey Representative sample of households 434 surveys returned; 38% response rate 5% margin of error Data statistically weighted to reflect population Assessment Goals Immediate Provide useful information for: Planning Resource allocation Performance measurement Program and policy evaluation Long-term Improved services More civic engagement Better community quality of life Stronger public trust The NCS focuses on a series of community characteristics and local government services, as well as issues of public trust. Resident behaviors related to civic engagement in the community also were measured in the survey. 1

4 FIGURE 2: THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY FOCUS AREAS COMMUNITY QUALITY Quality of life Quality of neighborhood Place to live COMMUNITY DESIGN Transportation Ease of travel, transit services, street maintenance Housing Housing options, cost, affordability Land Use and Zoning New development, growth, code enforcement Economic Sustainability Employment, shopping and retail, Town as a place to work ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Cleanliness Air quality Preservation of natural areas Garbage and recycling services RECREATION AND WELLNESS Parks and Recreation Recreation opportunities, use of parks and facilities, programs and classes Culture, Arts and Education Cultural and educational opportunities, libraries, schools COMMUNITY INCLUSIVENESS Sense of community Racial and cultural acceptance Senior, youth and low-income services CIVIC ENGAGEMENT Civic Activity Volunteerism Civic attentiveness Voting behavior Social Engagement Neighborliness, social and religious events Information and Awareness Public information, publications, Web site PUBLIC SAFETY Safety in neighborhood and downtown Crime victimization Police, fire, EMS services Emergency preparedness Health and Wellness Availability of food, health services, social services PUBLIC TRUST Cooperation in community Value of services Direction of community Citizen involvement Employees The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with selfaddressed and postage-paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. A total of 434 completed surveys were obtained, providing an overall response rate of 38%. Typically, response rates obtained on citizen surveys range from 25% to 40%. customized for the Town of Hooksett was developed in close cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. Hooksett staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community issues and provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. Town of Hooksett staff also augmented basic service through a variety of options including several custom questions. 2

5 U N D E R S T A N D I N G T H E R E S U L T S As shown in Figure 2, this report is based around respondents opinions about eight larger categories: community quality, community design, public safety, environmental sustainability, recreation and wellness, community inclusiveness, civic engagement and public trust. Each report section begins with residents ratings of community characteristics and is followed by residents ratings of service quality. For all evaluative questions, the percent of residents rating the service or community feature as excellent or good is presented. To see the full set of responses for each question on the survey, please see Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies. Margin of Error The margin of error around results for the Town of Hooksett Survey (434 completed surveys) is plus or minus five percentage points. This is a measure of the precision of your results; a larger number of completed surveys gives a smaller (more precise) margin of error, while a smaller number of surveys yields a larger margin of error. With your margin of error, you may conclude that when 60% of survey respondents report that a particular service is excellent or good, somewhere between 55-65% of all residents are likely to feel that way. Comparing Survey Results Certain kinds of services tend to be thought better of by residents in many communities across the country. For example, public safety services tend to be received better than transportation services by residents of most American communities. Where possible, the better comparison is not from one service to another in the Town of Hooksett, but from Town of Hooksett services to services like them provided by other jurisdictions. Benchmark Comparisons NRC s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services and gave their opinion about the quality of community life. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each jurisdiction; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The Town of Hooksett chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. A benchmark comparison (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was asked) has been provided when a similar question on the Town of Hooksett survey was included in NRC s database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. For most questions compared to the entire dataset, there were more than 100 jurisdictions included in the benchmark comparison. Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the Town of Hooksett results were generally noted as being above the benchmark, below the benchmark or similar to the benchmark. For some questions those related to resident behavior, circumstance or to a local problem the comparison to the benchmark is designated as more, similar or less (for example, the percent of crime victims, residents visiting a park or residents identifying code enforcement as a problem.) In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of much, (for example, much less or much above ). These labels come from a statistical comparison of the Town of Hooksett's rating to the benchmark. 3

6 Don t Know Responses and Rounding On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer don t know. The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. For some questions, respondents were permitted to select more than one answer. When the total exceeds 100% in a table for a multiple response question, it is because some respondents did select more than one response. When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the customary practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number. For more information on understanding The NCS report, please see Appendix B: Survey Methodology. 4

7 Executive Summary This report of the Town of Hooksett survey provides the opinions of a representative sample of residents about community quality of life, service delivery, civic participation and unique issues of local interest. A periodic sounding of resident opinion offers staff, elected officials and other stakeholders an opportunity to identify challenges and to plan for and evaluate improvements and to sustain services and amenities for long-term success. Most residents experienced a good quality of life in the Town of Hooksett and believed the Town was a good place to live. The overall quality of life in the Town of Hooksett was rated as excellent or good by 81% of respondents. A majority reported they plan on staying in the Town of Hooksett for the next five years. A variety of characteristics of the community were evaluated by those participating in the study. The three characteristics receiving the most favorable ratings were air quality, the cleanliness of Hooksett and the quality of the overall natural environment in Hooksett. The characteristics receiving the least positive ratings were ease of bicycle travel and ease of bus travel in Hooksett. Ratings of community characteristics were compared to the benchmark database. Of the 31 characteristics for which comparisons were available, two were above the national benchmark comparison, 12 were similar to the national benchmark comparison and 17 were below. Residents in the Town of Hooksett were somewhat civically engaged. While 31% had attended a meeting of local elected public officials or other local public meeting in the previous 12 months, 93% had provided help to a friend or neighbor. Less than half had volunteered their time to some group or activity in the Town of Hooksett, which was lower than the benchmark. In general, survey respondents demonstrated trust in local government. A majority rated the overall direction being taken by the Town of Hooksett as good or excellent. This was lower than the benchmark. Those residents who had interacted with an employee of the Town of Hooksett in the previous 12 months gave high marks to those employees. Most rated their overall impression of employees as excellent or good. On average, residents gave favorable ratings to most local government services. Town services rated were compared to the benchmark database. Of the 38 services for which comparisons were available, seven were above the benchmark comparison, 17 were similar to the benchmark comparison and 14 were below. Respondents were asked to rate how frequently they participated in various activities in Hooksett. The most popular activities included providing help to a friend or neighbor and recycling; while the least popular activities were riding a local bus in Hooksett and watching a meeting of local elected officials on cable television, online or other media. Generally, participation rates in the various activities in the community varied compared to other communities. 5

8 A Key Driver Analysis was conducted for the Town of Hooksett which examined the relationships between ratings of each service and ratings of the Town of Hooksett s services overall. Those key driver services that correlated most strongly with residents perceptions about overall Town service quality have been identified. By targeting improvements in key services, the Town of Hooksett can focus on the services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents opinions about overall service quality. Services found to be influential in ratings of overall service quality from the Key Driver Analysis were: Economic development Sewer services Sidewalk maintenance Traffic enforcement Of these services, those deserving the most attention may be sidewalk maintenance, which was below the benchmark comparisons. 6

9 Community Ratings O V E R A L L C O M M U N I T Y Q U A L I T Y Overall quality of community life may be the single best indicator of success in providing the natural ambience, services and amenities that make for an attractive community. The National Citizen Survey contained many questions related to quality of community life in the Town of Hooksett not only direct questions about quality of life overall and in neighborhoods, but questions to measure residents commitment to the Town of Hooksett. Residents were asked whether they planned to move soon or if they would recommend the Town of Hooksett to others. Intentions to stay and willingness to make recommendations provide evidence that the Town of Hooksett offers services and amenities that work. Most of the Town of Hooksett s residents gave favorable ratings to their neighborhoods and the community as a place to live. Further most reported they would recommend the community to others and plan to stay for the next five years. FIGURE 3: RATINGS OF OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY Excellent Good The overall quality of life in Hooksett 21% 60% Your neighborhood as a place to live 34% 53% Hooksett as a place to live 28% 58% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 4: LIKELIHOOD OF REMAINING IN COMMUNITY AND RECOMMENDING COMMUNITY Recommend living in Hooksett to someone who asks Remain in Hooksett for the next five years Very likely 44% Very likely 59% Somewhat likely 45% Somewhat likely 26% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent "likely" 7

10 FIGURE 5: OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of life in Hooksett Similar Your neighborhood as place to live Similar Hooksett as a place to live Similar Recommend living in Hooksett to someone who asks Above Remain in Hooksett for the next five years Similar 8

11 C O M M U N I T Y D E S I G N Transportation The ability to move easily throughout a community can greatly affect the quality of life of residents by diminishing time wasted in traffic congestion and by providing opportunities to travel quickly and safely by modes other than the automobile. High quality options for resident mobility not only require local government to remove barriers to flow but they require government programs and policies that create quality opportunities for all modes of travel. Residents responding to the survey were given a list of six aspects of mobility to rate on a scale of excellent, good, fair and poor. Ease of car travel in Hooksett was given the most positive rating, followed by availability of paths and walking trails. FIGURE 6: RATINGS OF TRANSPORTATION IN COMMUNITY Excellent Good Ease of car travel in Hooksett 13% 35% Ease of bus travel in Hooksett 2% 8% Ease of bicycle travel in Hooksett 3% 17% Ease of walking in Hooksett 5% 21% Availability of paths and walking trails 8% 27% Traffic flow on major streets 3% Ease of car travel in Hooksett Ease of bus travel in Hooksett Ease of bicycle travel in Hooksett Ease of walking in Hooksett 22% Availability of paths and walking trails Traffic flow on major streets 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 7: COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Much below Much below Much below Much below Much below Much below 9

12 Eight transportation services were rated in Hooksett. As compared to most communities across America, ratings tended to be a mix of positive and negative. One was above the benchmark, five were below the benchmark and two were similar to the benchmark. FIGURE 8: RATINGS OF TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES Excellent Good Street repair 6% 30% Street cleaning 10% 47% Street lighting 5% 44% Snow removal 21% 56% Sidewalk maintenance 7% 41% Traffic signal timing 9% 47% Bus or transit services 4% 26% Amount of public parking 11% 32% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 9: TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Street repair Much below Street cleaning Below Street lighting Much below Snow removal Much above Sidewalk maintenance Below Traffic signal timing Similar Bus or transit services Much below Amount of public parking Similar 10

13 By measuring choice of travel mode over time, communities can monitor their success in providing attractive alternatives to the traditional mode of travel, the single-occupied automobile. When asked how they typically traveled to work, single-occupancy (SOV) travel was the overwhelming mode of use. FIGURE 10: FREQUENCY OF BUS USE IN LAST 12 MONTHS Never 95% Once or twice 1% 3 to 12 times 0% 13 to 26 times 1% More than 26 times 2% FIGURE 11: FREQUENCY OF BUS USE BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Ridden a local bus within Hooksett Much less 11

14 FIGURE 12: MODE OF TRAVEL USED FOR WORK COMMUTE Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) by myself 83% Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) with other children or adults 12% Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation 0% Walk 1% Bicycle 0% Work at home 5% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of days per week mode used FIGURE 13: DRIVE ALONE BENCHMARKS Average percent of work commute trips made by driving alone Comparison to benchmark Much more 12

15 Housing Housing variety and affordability are not luxuries for any community. When there are too few options for housing style and affordability, the characteristics of a community tilt toward a single group, often of well-off residents. While this may seem attractive to a community, the absence of affordable townhomes, condominiums, mobile homes, single family detached homes and apartments means that in addition to losing the vibrancy of diverse thoughts and lifestyles, the community loses the service workers that sustain all communities police officers, school teachers, house painters and electricians. These workers must live elsewhere and commute in at great personal cost and to the detriment of traffic flow and air quality. Furthermore lower income residents pay so much of their income to rent or mortgage that little remains to bolster their own quality of life or local business. The survey of the Town of Hooksett residents asked respondents to reflect on the availability of affordable housing as well as the variety of housing options. The availability of affordable housing was rated as excellent or good by 45% of respondents, while the variety of housing options was rated as excellent or good by 60% of respondents. The rating of perceived affordable housing availability was similar in the Town of Hooksett than the ratings, on average, in comparison jurisdictions. FIGURE 14: RATINGS OF HOUSING IN COMMUNITY Excellent Good Availability of affordable quality housing 6% 39% Variety of housing options 11% 49% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 15: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality housing Similar Variety of housing options Similar 13

16 To augment the perceptions of affordable housing in Hooksett, the cost of housing as reported in the survey was compared to residents reported monthly income to create a rough estimate of the proportion of residents of the Town of Hooksett experiencing housing cost stress. A little more than one-third of survey participants were found to pay housing costs of more than 30% of their monthly household income. FIGURE 16: PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE HOUSING COSTS ARE "AFFORDABLE" Housing costs LESS than 30% of income 62% Housing costs 30% or MORE of income 38% FIGURE 17: HOUSING COSTS BENCHMARKS Not experiencing housing costs stress (housing costs 30% or MORE of income) Comparison to benchmark Less 14

17 Land Use and Zoning Community development contributes to a feeling among residents and even visitors of the attention given to the speed of growth, the location of residences and businesses, the kind of housing that is appropriate for the community and the ease of access to commerce, green space and residences. Even the community s overall appearance often is attributed to the planning and enforcement functions of the local jurisdiction. Residents will appreciate an attractive, well-planned community. The NCS questionnaire asked residents to evaluate the quality of new development, the appearance of the Town of Hooksett and the speed of population growth. Problems with the appearance of property were rated, and the quality of land use planning, zoning and code enforcement services were evaluated. The overall quality of new development in the Town of Hooksett was rated as excellent by 13% of respondents and as good by an additional 53%. The overall appearance of Hooksett was rated as excellent or good by 61% of respondents and was lower than the benchmark. When rating to what extent run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles were a problem in the Town of Hooksett, 16% thought they were a major problem. The services of land use, planning and zoning, code enforcement and animal control were rated below the benchmark. FIGURE 18: RATINGS OF THE COMMUNITY'S "BUILT ENVIRONMENT" Excellent Good Overall quality of new development in Hooksett 13% 53% Overall appearance of Hooksett 8% 53% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 19: BUILT ENVIRONMENT BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Quality of new development in Hooksett Similar Overall appearance of Hooksett Much below 15

18 FIGURE 20: RATINGS OF POPULATION GROWTH Much too slow 1% Somewhat too slow 7% Right amount 52% Much too fast 8% Somewhat too fast 32% FIGURE 21: POPULATION GROWTH BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Population growth seen as too fast More FIGURE 22: RATINGS OF NUISANCE PROBLEMS Major problem 16% Not a problem 9% Moderate problem 35% FIGURE 23: NUISANCE PROBLEMS BENCHMARKS Run down buildings, weed lots and junk vehicles seen as a "major" problem Minor problem 40% Comparison to benchmark More 16

19 FIGURE 24: RATINGS OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES Excellent Good Land use, planning and zoning 3% 38% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 4% 27% Animal control 10% 51% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 25: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Land use, planning and zoning Below Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) Much below Animal control Below 17

20 E C O N O M I C S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y The United States has been in recession since late 2007 with an accelerated downturn occurring in the fourth quarter of Officially we emerged from recession in the third quarter of 2009, but high unemployment lingers, keeping a lid on a strong recovery. Many readers worry that the ill health of the economy will color how residents perceive their environment and the services that local government delivers. NRC researchers have found that the economic downturn has chastened Americans view of their own economic futures but has not colored their perspectives about community services or quality of life. Survey respondents were asked to rate a number of community features related to economic opportunity and growth. The most positively rated features were the overall quality of business and service establishments in Hooksett and shopping opportunities. Receiving the lowest rating was employment opportunities. FIGURE 26: RATINGS OF ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AND OPPORTUNITIES Excellent Good Employment opportunities 4% 20% Shopping opportunities 15% 48% Hooksett as a place to work 18% 42% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Hooksett 11% 56% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 27: ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AND OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Employment opportunities Below Shopping opportunities Above Hooksett as a place to work Similar Overall quality of business and service establishments in Hooksett Similar 18

21 Residents were asked to evaluate the speed of jobs growth and retail growth on a scale from much too slow to much too fast. When asked about the rate of jobs growth in Hooksett, 70% responded that it was too slow, while 37% reported retail growth as too slow. Fewer residents in Hooksett compared to other jurisdictions believed that retail growth and jobs growth was too slow. FIGURE 28: RATINGS OF RETAIL AND JOBS GROWTH Retail Growth Jobs Growth Somewhat too slow 33% Right amount 29% Right amount 50% Somewhat too fast 1% Much too slow 4% Much too fast 5% Somewhat too fast 8% Somewhat too slow 50% Much too fast Much too 1% slow 20% FIGURE 29: RETAIL AND JOBS GROWTH BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Retail growth seen as too slow Less Jobs growth seen as too slow Much less 19

22 FIGURE 30: RATINGS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Poor 13% Excellent 6% Good 46% Fair 35% Economic development FIGURE 31: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Similar 20

23 Residents were asked to reflect on their economic prospects in the near term. Seventeen percent of the Town of Hooksett residents expected that the coming six months would have a somewhat or very positive impact on their family, while 33% felt that the economic future would be somewhat or very negative. The percent of residents with an optimistic outlook on their household income was the same as comparison jurisdictions. FIGURE 32: RATINGS OF PERSONAL ECONOMIC FUTURE Somewhat positive 14% Very positive 3% Neutral 49% Very negative 4% Somewhat negative 29% What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? FIGURE 33: PERSONAL ECONOMIC FUTURE BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Positive impact of economy on household income Similar 21

24 P U B L I C S A F E T Y Safety from violent or property crimes creates the cornerstone of an attractive community. No one wants to live in fear of crime, fire or natural hazards, and communities in which residents feel protected or unthreatened are communities that are more likely to show growth in population, commerce and property value. Residents were asked to rate their feelings of safety from violent crimes, property crimes, fire and environmental dangers and to evaluate the local agencies whose main charge is to provide protection from these dangers. Most gave positive ratings of safety in the Town of Hooksett. About 81% of those completing the questionnaire said they felt very or somewhat safe from violent crimes and 79% felt very or somewhat safe from environmental hazards. Daytime sense of safety was better than nighttime safety. FIGURE 34: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY AND PERSONAL PUBLIC SAFETY Very safe Somewhat safe In your neighborhood during the day 71% 25% In your neighborhood after dark 38% 46% In Hooksett's downtown area during the day 58% 35% In Hooksett's downtown area after dark 25% 52% Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 33% 48% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 16% 39% 51% 40% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents 22

25 FIGURE 35: COMMUNITY AND PERSONAL PUBLIC SAFETY BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark In your neighborhood during the day Above In your neighborhood after dark Above In Hooksett's downtown area during the day Similar In Hooksett's downtown area after dark Much above Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) Similar Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) Above Environmental hazards, including toxic waste Similar 23

26 As assessed by the survey, 7% of respondents reported that someone in the household had been the victim of one or more crimes in the past year. Of those who had been the victim of a crime, 97% had reported it to police. Compared to other jurisdictions more Hooksett residents had not been victims of crime in the 12 months preceding the survey and fewer Hooksett residents did not report their most recent crime victimization to the police. FIGURE 36: CRIME VICTIMIZATION AND REPORTING During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? No 3% Yes 7% No 93% Yes 97% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Not victim of crime Did not report crime FIGURE 37: CRIME VICTIMIZATION AND REPORTING BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark More Much less 24

27 Residents rated eight Town public safety services; of these, one was rated above the benchmark comparison, seven were rated similar to the benchmark comparison and none were rated below the benchmark comparison. Ambulance or emergency medical services and fire services received the highest ratings, while traffic enforcement and municipal courts received the lowest ratings. FIGURE 38: RATINGS OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES Excellent Good Police services 31% 53% Fire services 41% 52% Ambulance or emergency medical services 39% 55% Crime prevention 17% 59% Fire prevention and education 24% 59% Traffic enforcement 14% 54% Municipal courts 15% 57% Emergency preparedness 16% 59% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents 25

28 Figure 39: Public Safety Services Benchmarks Police services Fire services Ambulance or emergency medical services Crime prevention Fire prevention and education Traffic enforcement Courts Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) Comparison to benchmark Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Above 26

29 FIGURE 40: CONTACT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the Town of Hooksett Police Department within the last 12 months? Yes 37% Excellent 51% Good 27% Fair 12% No 63% Poor 11% What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the Town of Hooksett Police Department? FIGURE 41: CONTACT WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the Town of Hooksett Fire Department within the last 12 months? Good 30% Yes 25% Fair 2% No 75% Excellent 68% Poor 0% What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the Town of Hooksett Fire Department? 27

30 FIGURE 42: CONTACT WITH POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS BENCHMARKS Had contact with the Town of Hooksett Police Department Overall impression of most recent contact with the Town of Hooksett Police Department Had contact with the Town of Hooksett Fire Department Overall impression of most recent contact with the Town of Hooksett Fire Department Comparison to benchmark Similar Above Much more Above 28

31 E N V I R O N M E N T A L S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y Residents value the aesthetic qualities of their hometowns and appreciate features such as overall cleanliness and landscaping. In addition, the appearance and smell or taste of the air and water do not go unnoticed. These days, increasing attention is paid to proper treatment of the environment. At the same time that they are attending to community appearance and cleanliness, cities, counties, states and the nation are going Green. These strengthening environmental concerns extend to trash haul, recycling, sewer services, the delivery of power and water and preservation of open spaces. Treatment of the environment affects air and water quality and, generally, how habitable and inviting a place appears. Residents of the Town of Hooksett were asked to evaluate their local environment and the services provided to ensure its quality. The overall quality of the natural environment was rated as excellent or good by 69% of survey respondents. Air quality received the highest rating, and it was above the benchmark. FIGURE 43: RATINGS OF THE COMMUNITY'S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Excellent Good Cleanliness of Hooksett 14% 57% Quality of overall natural environment in Hooksett 15% 54% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 13% 53% Air quality 21% 56% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 44: COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Cleanliness of Hooksett Similar Quality of overall natural environment in Hooksett Similar Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts Similar Air quality Above 29

32 Resident recycling was greater than recycling reported in comparison communities. FIGURE 45: FREQUENCY OF RECYCLING IN LAST 12 MONTHS 13 to 26 times 7% 3 to 12 times 7% More than 26 times 70% Once or twice 5% Never 11% FIGURE 46: FREQUENCY OF RECYCLING BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home More 30

33 Of the seven utility services rated by those completing the questionnaire, three were higher than the benchmark comparison, two were similar and two were below the benchmark comparison. FIGURE 47: RATINGS OF UTILITY SERVICES Excellent Good Power (electric and/or gas) utility 18% 60% Sewer services 18% 57% Drinking water 20% 57% Storm drainage 10% 50% Yard waste pick-up 15% 35% Recycling 47% 38% Garbage collection 47% 41% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 48: UTILITY SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Power (electric and/or gas) utility Similar Sewer services Similar Drinking water Above Storm drainage Below Yard waste pick-up Much below Recycling Much above Garbage collection Above 31

34 R E C R E A T I O N A N D W E L L N E S S Parks and Recreation Quality parks and recreation opportunities help to define a community as more than the grind of its business, traffic and hard work. Leisure activities vastly can improve the quality of life of residents, serving both to entertain and mobilize good health. The survey contained questions seeking residents perspectives about opportunities and services related to the community s parks and recreation services. Recreation opportunities in the Town of Hooksett were rated somewhat positively as were services related to parks and recreation. Town parks and recreation programs were rated similar to the benchmark. Recreation centers or facilities received the lowest rating and were lower than the national benchmark. Resident use of Hooksett parks and recreation facilities tells its own story about the attractiveness and accessibility of those services. Recreation program use in Hooksett was lower than use in comparison jurisdictions. FIGURE 49: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Poor 11% Excellent 6% Good 39% Recreation opportunities Fair 45% FIGURE 50: COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Much below 32

35 FIGURE 51: PARTICIPATION IN PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES Participated in a recreation program or activity 42% Visited a neighborhood park or Town park 81% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of respondents who did each at least once in last 12 months FIGURE 52: PARTICIPATION IN PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Participated in a recreation program or activity Less Visited a neighborhood park or Town park Less FIGURE 53: RATINGS OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES Excellent Good Town parks 27% 60% Recreation programs or classes 19% 48% Recreation centers or facilities Town parks Recreation programs or classes Recreation centers or facilities 15% 42% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 54: PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Similar Similar Much below 33

36 Culture, Arts and Education A full service community does not address only the life and safety of its residents. Like individuals who simply go to the office and return home, a community that pays attention only to the life sustaining basics becomes insular, dreary and uninspiring. In the case of communities without thriving culture, arts and education opportunities, the magnet that attracts those who might consider relocating there is vastly weakened. Cultural, artistic, social and educational services elevate the opportunities for personal growth among residents. In the survey, residents were asked about the quality of opportunities to participate in cultural and educational activities. Opportunities to attend cultural activities were rated as excellent or good by 24% of respondents. Educational opportunities were rated as excellent or good by 62% of respondents. Compared to the benchmark data, educational opportunities were below the average of comparison jurisdictions, as were cultural activity opportunities. About 73% of Hooksett residents used a Town library at least once in the 12 months preceding the survey. This participation rate for library use was similar to comparison jurisdictions. FIGURE 55: RATINGS OF CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Excellent Good Opportunities to attend cultural activities 4% 20% Educational opportunities 10% 52% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 56: CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to attend cultural activities Much below Educational opportunities Below 34

37 FIGURE 57: PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Used Hooksett public libraries or their services 73% Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Hooksett 31% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of respondents who did each at least once in last 12 months FIGURE 58: PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Used Hooksett public libraries or their services Similar Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Hooksett Much less FIGURE 59: PERCEPTION OF CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Excellent Good Public schools 28% 46% Public library services 44% 45% Public schools Public library services 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 60: CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Above Above 35

38 Health and Wellness Healthy residents have the wherewithal to contribute to the economy as volunteers or employees and they do not present a burden in cost and time to others. Although residents bear the primary responsibility for their good health, local government provides services that can foster that well being and that provide care when residents are ill. Residents of the Town of Hooksett were asked to rate the community s health services as well as the availability of health care, high quality affordable food and preventive health care services. The availability of affordable quality food was rated most positively for the Town of Hooksett, while the availability of preventive health services was rated less favorably by residents. Among Hooksett residents, 7% rated the availability of affordable quality health care as excellent while 44% rated it as good. Those ratings were similar to the ratings of comparison communities. FIGURE 61: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES Excellent Good Availability of affordable quality health care 7% 44% Availability of affordable quality food 12% 53% Availability of preventive health services 10% 38% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 62: COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality health care Similar Availability of affordable quality food Similar Availability of preventive health services Below 36

39 Health services in Hooksett were rated excellent or good by 62% of respondents and were below the benchmark. FIGURE 63: RATINGS OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS SERVICES Poor 7% Excellent 9% Fair 30% Good 53% Health services FIGURE 64: HEALTH AND WELLNESS SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Below 37

40 C O M M U N I T Y I N C L U S I V E N E S S Diverse communities that include among their residents a mix of races, ages, wealth, ideas and beliefs have the raw material for the most vibrant and creative society. However, the presence of these features alone does not ensure a high quality or desirable space. Surveyed residents were asked about the success of the mix: the sense of community, the openness of residents to people of diverse backgrounds and the attractiveness of the Town of Hooksett as a place to raise children or to retire. They were also questioned about the quality of services delivered to various population subgroups, including older adults, youth and residents with few resources. A community that succeeds in creating an inclusive environment for a variety of residents is a community that offers more to many. A high percentage of residents rated the Town of Hooksett as an excellent or good place to raise kids and a moderate percentage rated it as an excellent or good place to retire. Most residents felt that the local sense of community was excellent or good. A similar number of survey respondents felt the Town of Hooksett was open and accepting towards people of diverse backgrounds. The availability of affordable quality child care was rated the lowest by residents but was similar to the benchmark. FIGURE 65: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY QUALITY AND INCLUSIVENESS Excellent Good Sense of community 13% 52% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 16% 48% Availability of affordable quality child care Hooksett as a place to raise children Hooksett as a place to retire 9% 17% 32% 38% 45% 54% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents 38

41 Sense of community FIGURE 66: COMMUNITY QUALITY AND INCLUSIVENESS BENCHMARKS Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds Availability of affordable quality child care Hooksett as a place to raise kids Hooksett as a place to retire Comparison to benchmark Similar Similar Similar Above Below Services to more vulnerable populations (e.g., seniors, youth or low-income residents) ranged from 42% to 62% with ratings of excellent or good. Services to youth were the similar to the benchmark while services to seniors and services to low income people were below. FIGURE 67: RATINGS OF QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED FOR POPULATION SUBGROUPS Excellent Good Services to seniors 11% 33% Services to youth 12% 50% Services to low-income people 8% 34% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 68: SERVICES PROVIDED FOR POPULATION SUBGROUPS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Services to seniors Much below Services to youth Similar Services to low income people Below 39

42 C I V I C E N G A G E M E N T Community leaders cannot run a jurisdiction alone and a jurisdiction cannot run effectively if residents remain strangers with little to connect them. Elected officials and staff require the assistance of local residents whether that assistance comes in tacit approval or eager help; and commonality of purpose among the electorate facilitates policies and programs that appeal to most and causes discord among few. Furthermore, when neighbors help neighbors, the cost to the community to provide services to residents in need declines. When residents are civically engaged, they have taken the opportunity to participate in making the community more livable for all. The extent to which local government provides opportunities to become informed and engaged and the extent to which residents take those opportunities is an indicator of the connection between government and populace. By understanding your residents level of connection to, knowledge of and participation in local government, the Town can find better opportunities to communicate and educate citizens about its mission, services, accomplishments and plans. Communities with strong civic engagement may be more likely to see the benefits of programs intended to improve the quality of life of all residents and therefore would be more likely to support those new policies or programs. Civic Activity Respondents were asked about the perceived community volunteering opportunities and their participation as citizens of the Town of Hooksett. Survey participants rated the volunteer opportunities in the Town of Hooksett somewhat favorably. Opportunities to participate in community matters were rated less favorably. Ratings of civic engagement opportunities were below ratings from comparison jurisdictions where these questions were asked. FIGURE 69: RATINGS OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES Excellent Good Opportunities to participate in community matters Opportunities to volunteer 7% 10% Opportunities to participate in community matters Opportunities to volunteer 43% 46% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 70: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Much below Much below 40

43 Most of the participants in this survey had not attended a public meeting, volunteered time to a group or participated in a club in the 12 months prior to the survey, but the vast majority had helped a friend. The participation rates of these civic behaviors were compared to the rates in other jurisdictions. Providing help to a friend or neighbor showed similar rates of involvement; while attending a meeting of local elected officials showed higher rates. Watching a meeting of local elected officials, volunteering time to a group and participating in a club or civic group showed lower rates of community engagement. FIGURE 71: PARTICIPATION IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 31% Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other Town-sponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 20% Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Hooksett 30% Participated in a club or civic group in Hooksett 23% Provided help to a friend or neighbor 93% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of respondents who did each at least once in last 12 months FIGURE 72: PARTICIPATION IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Hooksett Participated in a club or civic group in Hooksett Provided help to a friend or neighbor Comparison to benchmark Much more Much less Much less Much less Similar 41

44 Town of Hooksett residents showed the largest amount of civic engagement in the area of electoral participation. Eighty-three percent reported they were registered to vote and 77% indicated they had voted in the last general election. This rate of self-reported voting was about the same as that of comparison communities. FIGURE 73: REPORTED VOTING BEHAVIOR Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? Ineligible to vote 3% Ineligible to vote 3% Yes 83% No 14% Yes 77% No 20% Do you remember voting in the last general election? Registered to vote Voted in last general election FIGURE 74: VOTING BEHAVIOR BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Similar Similar 42

45 Information and Awareness Those completing the survey were asked about their use and perceptions of various information sources and local government media services. When asked whether they had visited the Town of Hooksett Web site in the previous 12 months, 73% reported they had done so at least once. Public information services were rated similarly compared to benchmark data. FIGURE 75: USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES Read Hooksett Newsletter 82% Visited the Town of Hooksett Web site (at 73% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of respondents who did each at least once in last 12 months FIGURE 76: USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Read Hooksett Newsletter More Visited the Town of Hooksett Web site Much more FIGURE 77: RATINGS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEDIA SERVICES AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION Excellent Good Cable television 14% 47% Public information services 15% 49% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 78: LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEDIA SERVICES AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Cable television Similar Public information services Similar 43

46 Social Engagement Opportunities to participate in social events and activities were rated as excellent or good by 46% of respondents, while more rated opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities as excellent or good. FIGURE 79: RATINGS OF SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 7% 39% Excellent Good Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 7% 46% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 80: SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Much below Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities Much below Residents in Hooksett reported a strong amount of neighborliness. About 53% indicated talking or visiting with their neighbors at least several times a week. This amount of contact with neighbors was more than the amount of contact reported in other communities. FIGURE 81: CONTACT WITH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors? Less than several times a month 24% Just about everyday 21% Several times a month 23% Several times a week 32% FIGURE 82: CONTACT WITH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS BENCHMARKS Has contact with neighbors at least several times per week Comparison to benchmark More 44

47 P U B L I C T R U S T When local government leaders are trusted, an environment of cooperation is more likely to surround all decisions they make. Cooperation leads to easier communication between leaders and residents and increases the likelihood that high value policies and programs will be implemented to improve the quality of life of the entire community. Trust can be measured in residents opinions about the overall direction the Town of Hooksett is taking, their perspectives about the service value their taxes purchase and the openness of government to citizen participation. In addition, resident opinion about services provided by the Town of Hooksett could be compared to their opinion about services provided by the state and federal governments. If residents find nothing to admire in the services delivered by any level of government, their opinions about the Town of Hooksett may be colored by their dislike of what all levels of government provide. A majority of respondents felt that the value of services for taxes paid was excellent or good. When asked to rate the job the Town of Hooksett does at welcoming citizen involvement, 43% rated it as excellent or good. Of these four ratings, none were above the benchmark, one was similar to the benchmark and three were below the benchmark. FIGURE 83: PUBLIC TRUST RATINGS Excellent Good The value of services for the taxes paid to Hooksett 9% 47% The overall direction that Hooksett is taking 7% 46% The job Hooksett government does at welcoming citizen involvement 4% 39% Overall image or reputation of Hooksett 12% 48% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 84: PUBLIC TRUST BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Value of services for the taxes paid to Hooksett Similar The overall direction that Hooksett is taking Below Job Hooksett government does at welcoming citizen involvement Much below Overall image or reputation of Hooksett Much below 45

48 On average, residents of the Town of Hooksett gave the highest evaluations to their own local government and the lowest average rating to the Federal government. The overall quality of services delivered by the Town of Hooksett was rated as excellent or good by 80% of survey participants. The Town of Hooksett s rating was similar to the benchmark when compared to other communities in the nation. FIGURE 85: RATINGS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS Excellent Good Services provided by Town of Hooksett 18% 62% Services provided by the Federal Government 3% 32% Services provided by the State Government 3% 40% Services provided by Merrimack County Government 6% 41% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 86: SERVICES PROVIDED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Services provided by the Town of Hooksett Similar Services provided by the Federal Government Below Services provided by the State Government Similar Services provided by Merrimack County Government Below 46

49 Town of Hooksett Employees The employees of the Town of Hooksett who interact with the public create the first impression that most residents have of the Town of Hooksett. Front line staff who provide information, assist with bill paying, collect trash, create service schedules, fight fires and crime and even give traffic tickets are the collective face of the Town of Hooksett. As such, it is important to know about residents experience talking with that face. When employees appear to be knowledgeable, responsive and courteous, residents are more likely to feel that any needs or problems may be solved through positive and productive interactions with the Town of Hooksett staff. Those completing the survey were asked if they had been in contact with a Town employee either in-person, over the phone or via in the last 12 months; the 74% who reported that they had been in contact (a percent that is above the benchmark comparison) were then asked to indicate overall how satisfied they were with the employee in their most recent contact. Town employees were rated highly; 88% of respondents rated their overall impression as excellent or good, which was much higher than the benchmark. FIGURE 87: PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAD CONTACT WITH TOWN EMPLOYEES IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS Have you had any in-person, phone or contact with an employee of the Town of Hooksett within the last 12 months? No 26% Yes 74% FIGURE 88: CONTACT WITH TOWN EMPLOYEES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Had contact with Town employee(s) in last 12 months Much more 47

50 FIGURE 89: RATINGS OF TOWN EMPLOYEES (AMONG THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT) Excellent Good Knowledge 52% 40% Responsiveness 51% 38% Courtesy 53% 36% Overall impression 50% 38% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents who had contact with an employee in previous 12 months FIGURE 90: RATINGS OF TOWN EMPLOYEES (AMONG THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT) BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Knowledge Much above Responsiveness Much above Courteousness Much above Overall impression Much above 48

51 From Data to Action R E S I D E N T P R I O R I T I E S Knowing where to focus limited resources to improve residents opinions of local government requires information that targets the services that are most important to residents. However, when residents are asked what services are most important, they rarely stray beyond core services those directed to save lives and improve safety. In market research, identifying the most important characteristics of a transaction or product is called Key Driver Analysis (KDA). The key drivers that are identified from that analysis do not come from asking customers to self-report which service or product characteristic most influenced their decision to buy or return, but rather from statistical analyses of the predictors of their behavior. When customers are asked to name the most important characteristics of a good or service, responses often are expected or misleading just as they can be in the context of a citizen survey. For example, air travelers often claim that safety is the primary consideration in their choice of an airline, yet key driver analysis reveals that frequent flier perks or in-flight entertainment predicts their buying decisions. In local government core services like fire protection invariably land at the top of the list created when residents are asked about the most important local government services. And core services are important. But by using KDA, our approach digs deeper to identify the less obvious, but more influential services that are most related to residents ratings of overall quality of local government services. Because services focused directly on life and safety remain essential to quality government, it is suggested that core services should remain the focus of continuous monitoring and improvement where necessary but monitoring core services or asking residents to identify important services is not enough. A KDA was conducted for the Town of Hooksett by examining the relationships between ratings of each service and ratings of the Town of Hooksett s overall services. Those Key Driver services that correlated most highly with residents perceptions about overall Town service quality have been identified. By targeting improvements in key services, the Town of Hooksett can focus on the services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents opinions about overall service quality. Because a strong correlation is not the same as a cause, there is no guarantee that improving ratings on key drivers necessarily will improve ratings. What is certain from these analyses is that key drivers are good predictors of overall resident opinion and that the key drivers presented may be useful focus areas to consider for enhancement of overall service ratings. Services found to be most strongly correlated with ratings of overall service quality from the Hooksett Key Driver Analysis were: Economic development Sewer services Sidewalk maintenance Traffic enforcement 49

52 T O W N O F H O O K S E T T A C T I O N C H A R T The 2013 Town of Hooksett Action Chart on the following page combines two dimensions of performance: Comparison to resident evaluations from other communities. When a comparison is available, the background color of each service box indicates whether the service is above the national benchmark (green), similar to the benchmark (yellow) or below the benchmark (red). Identification of key services. A black key icon ( ) next to a service box indicates it as a key driver for the Town. Twenty-two services were included in the KDA for the Town of Hooksett. Of these, six were above the benchmark, six were below the benchmark and 10 were similar to the benchmark. Considering all performance data included in the Action Chart, a jurisdiction typically will want to consider improvements to any key driver services that are not at least similar to the benchmark. In Hooksett, sidewalk maintenance was below the benchmark and economic development, sewer services and traffic enforcement were similar to the benchmark. More detail about interpreting results can be found in the next section. Services with a high percent of respondents answering don t know were excluded from the analysis and were considered services that would be less influential. See Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies, Frequencies Excluding Don t Know Responses for the percent don t know for each service. 50

53 Sample FIGURE 91: TOWN OF HOOKSETT ACTION CHART Overall Quality of Town of Hooksett Services Community Design Recreation and Wellness Code enforcement Economic development Sidewalk maintenance Street lighting Street repair Snow removal Street cleaning Traffic signal timing Town parks Public library Services Cable television Civic Engagement Public schools Public information Environmental Sustainability Drinking water Garbage collection Power utility Recycling Sewer services Storm drainage Traffic enforcement Public Safety Police services Fire services Above Benchmark Legend Similar to Benchmark Key Driver Below Benchmark 51

54 Using Your Action Chart The key drivers derived for the Town of Hooksett provide a list of those services that are uniquely related to overall service quality. Those key drivers are marked with the symbol of a key in the action chart. Because key driver results are based on a relatively small number of responses, the relationships or correlations that define the key drivers are subject to more variability than is seen when key drivers are derived from a large national dataset of resident responses. To benefit the Town of Hooksett, NRC lists the key drivers derived from tens of thousands of resident responses from across the country. This national list is updated periodically so that you can compare your key drivers to the key drivers from the entire NRC dataset. Where your locally derived key drivers overlap national key drivers, it makes sense to focus even more strongly on your keys. Similarly, when your local key drivers overlap your core services, there is stronger argument to make for attending to your key drivers that overlap with core services. As staff review key drivers, not all drivers may resonate as likely links to residents perspectives about overall service quality. For example, in Hooksett, planning and zoning and police services may be obvious links to overall service delivery (and each is a key driver from our national database), since it could be easy for staff to see how residents view of overall service delivery could be colored by how well they perceive police and land use planning to be delivered. But animal control could be a surprise. Before rejecting a key driver that does not pass the first test of conventional wisdom, consider whether residents opinions about overall service quality could reasonably be influenced by this unexpected driver. For example, in the case of animal control, was there a visible case of violation prior to the survey data collection? Do Hooksett residents have different expectations for animal control than what current policy provides? Are the rare instances of violation serious enough to cause a word of mouth campaign about service delivery? If, after deeper review, the suspect driver still does not square with your understanding of the services that could influence residents perspectives about overall service quality (and if that driver is not a core service or a key driver from NRC s national research), put action in that area on hold and wait to see if it appears as a key driver the next time the survey is conducted. In the following table, we have listed your key drivers, core services and the national key drivers and we have indicated (in bold typeface and with the symbol ), the Town of Hooksett key drivers that overlap core services or the nationally derived keys. In general, key drivers below the benchmark may be targeted for improvement. Additionally, we have indicated (with the symbol ) those services that neither are local nor national key drivers nor are they core services. It is these services that could be considered first for resource reductions. 52

55 Service FIGURE 92: KEY DRIVERS COMPARED Town of Hooksett Key Driver National Key Driver Core Service Police services Fire services Traffic enforcement Street repair Street cleaning Street lighting Snow removal Sidewalk maintenance Traffic signal timing Garbage collection Recycling Storm drainage Drinking water Sewer services Power (electric and/or gas) utility Town parks Code enforcement Economic development Public library Public information services Public schools Cable television Key driver overlaps with national and or core services Service may be targeted for reductions it is not a key driver or core service 53

56 Custom Questions Don t know responses have been removed from the following questions, when applicable. Custom Question 1 To what extent do you support or oppose increasing taxes and/or fees to ensure that Town services continue to be provided at current levels? Percent of respondents Strongly support 10% Somewhat support 39% Somewhat oppose 28% Strongly oppose 24% Total 100% Please indicate how important, if at all, each of the following projects and issues is for the Town to address: Custom Question 2 Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Street maintenance and improvement 26% 49% 25% 0% 100% Preserving open space 22% 38% 35% 5% 100% Building additional sidewalks 21% 26% 35% 17% 100% Drainage improvements 18% 40% 37% 5% 100% Holding Town and School District elections on the same day 18% 33% 32% 16% 100% Parks maintenance and improvements 15% 31% 48% 7% 100% Economic development initiatives 14% 44% 30% 12% 100% Creating a Senior Center 11% 23% 43% 23% 100% Increasing use of social media 9% 14% 42% 36% 100% Opening Lilac Bridge (the old Village bridge) to foot traffic 8% 15% 36% 40% 100% Constructing a third fire station 6% 17% 31% 45% 100% Preserving Old Town Hall 5% 15% 43% 37% 100% Total 54

57 Custom Question 3 If the Town had to reduce services to cut costs, how much, if at all, do you think the Town should reduce the level of each of the following services? Reduce a lot Reduce somewhat Do not reduce Bulky item pick-up 37% 46% 17% 100% Special events (e.g., Old Home Day) 19% 50% 31% 100% Recreational programs 14% 50% 36% 100% Sewer availability 8% 37% 55% 100% Library services 8% 38% 54% 100% Code enforcement 7% 44% 49% 100% Recycling 5% 28% 68% 100% Parks maintenance 4% 57% 39% 100% Fire services 2% 11% 87% 100% Police services 2% 14% 84% 100% Snow removal 1% 13% 86% 100% Total 55

58 Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies F R E Q U E N C I E S E X C L U D I N G DON T K N O W R E S P O N S E S Question 1: Quality of Life Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Hooksett: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Hooksett as a place to live 28% 58% 13% 1% 100% Your neighborhood as a place to live 34% 53% 11% 2% 100% Hooksett as a place to raise children 32% 54% 12% 1% 100% Hooksett as a place to work 18% 42% 26% 15% 100% Hooksett as a place to retire 17% 45% 25% 14% 100% The overall quality of life in Hooksett 21% 60% 18% 1% 100% Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Hooksett as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Sense of community 13% 52% 28% 7% 100% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 16% 48% 28% 8% 100% Overall appearance of Hooksett 8% 53% 31% 7% 100% Cleanliness of Hooksett 14% 57% 26% 3% 100% Overall quality of new development in Hooksett 13% 53% 26% 8% 100% Variety of housing options 11% 49% 35% 6% 100% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Hooksett 11% 56% 27% 6% 100% Shopping opportunities 15% 48% 28% 8% 100% Opportunities to attend cultural activities 4% 20% 44% 31% 100% Recreational opportunities 6% 39% 45% 11% 100% Employment opportunities 4% 20% 49% 27% 100% Educational opportunities 10% 52% 26% 11% 100% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 7% 39% 40% 13% 100% Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 7% 46% 40% 7% 100% Opportunities to volunteer 10% 46% 34% 10% 100% Opportunities to participate in community matters 7% 43% 40% 9% 100% Ease of car travel in Hooksett 13% 35% 29% 24% 100% Ease of bus travel in Hooksett 2% 8% 26% 64% 100% Ease of bicycle travel in Hooksett 3% 17% 34% 45% 100% Ease of walking in Hooksett 5% 21% 32% 42% 100% Availability of paths and walking trails 8% 27% 42% 22% 100% Traffic flow on major streets 3% 22% 40% 35% 100% 56

59 Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Hooksett as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Amount of public parking 11% 32% 43% 14% 100% Availability of affordable quality housing 6% 39% 45% 10% 100% Availability of affordable quality child care 9% 38% 39% 14% 100% Availability of affordable quality health care 7% 44% 36% 12% 100% Availability of affordable quality food 12% 53% 26% 8% 100% Availability of preventive health services 10% 38% 41% 10% 100% Air quality 21% 56% 22% 2% 100% Quality of overall natural environment in Hooksett 15% 54% 30% 1% 100% Overall image or reputation of Hooksett 12% 48% 31% 10% 100% Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Hooksett over the past 2 years: Much too slow Question 3: Growth Somewhat too slow Right amount Somewhat too fast Much too fast Population growth 1% 7% 52% 32% 8% 100% Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 4% 33% 50% 8% 5% 100% Jobs growth 20% 50% 29% 1% 1% 100% Total Question 4: Code Enforcement To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Hooksett? Percent of respondents Not a problem 9% Minor problem 40% Moderate problem 35% Major problem 16% Total 100% Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Hooksett: Question 5: Community Safety Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 33% 48% 13% 5% 1% 100% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 16% 51% 18% 12% 2% 100% Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 39% 40% 16% 3% 1% 100% Total 57

60 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Question 6: Personal Safety Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe In your neighborhood during the day 71% 25% 3% 1% 0% 100% In your neighborhood after dark 38% 46% 9% 6% 1% 100% In Hooksett's downtown area during the day 58% 35% 6% 2% 0% 100% In Hooksett's downtown area after dark 25% 52% 16% 6% 1% 100% Total Question 7: Contact with Police Department Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the Town of Hooksett Police Department within the last 12 months? No Yes Total Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the Town of Hooksett Police Department within the last 12 months? 63% 37% 100% Question 8: Ratings of Contact with Police Department What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the Town of Hooksett Police Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the Town of Hooksett Police Department? 51% 27% 12% 11% 100% Question 9: Crime Victim During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Percent of respondents No 93% Yes 7% Total 100% Question 10: Crime Reporting If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Percent of respondents No 3% Yes 97% Total 100% 58

61 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Hooksett? Question 11: Resident Behaviors Never Once or twice 3 to 12 times 13 to 26 times More than 26 times Used Hooksett public libraries or their services 27% 28% 25% 10% 10% 100% Participated in a recreation program or activity 58% 20% 16% 3% 3% 100% Visited a neighborhood park or Town park 19% 27% 33% 12% 8% 100% Ridden a local bus within Hooksett 95% 1% 0% 1% 2% 100% Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 69% 19% 10% 1% 2% 100% Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other Town-sponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 80% 12% 6% 1% 1% 100% Read Hooksett Newsletter 18% 30% 35% 11% 6% 100% Visited the Town of Hooksett Web site (at 27% 27% 35% 7% 4% 100% Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 11% 5% 7% 7% 70% 100% Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Hooksett 70% 10% 11% 2% 7% 100% Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Hooksett 69% 12% 7% 4% 8% 100% Participated in a club or civic group in Hooksett 77% 12% 6% 3% 3% 100% Provided help to a friend or neighbor 7% 19% 46% 15% 14% 100% Total Question 12: Neighborliness About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? Percent of respondents Just about everyday 21% Several times a week 32% Several times a month 23% Less than several times a month 24% Total 100% Question 13: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Hooksett: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police services 31% 53% 12% 4% 100% Fire services 41% 52% 6% 1% 100% Ambulance or emergency medical services 39% 55% 6% 0% 100% Crime prevention 17% 59% 18% 6% 100% 59

62 Question 13: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Hooksett: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Fire prevention and education 24% 59% 14% 3% 100% Municipal courts 15% 57% 15% 13% 100% Traffic enforcement 14% 54% 23% 10% 100% Street repair 6% 30% 41% 23% 100% Street cleaning 10% 47% 35% 9% 100% Street lighting 5% 44% 35% 16% 100% Snow removal 21% 56% 16% 6% 100% Sidewalk maintenance 7% 41% 38% 15% 100% Traffic signal timing 9% 47% 31% 14% 100% Bus or transit services 4% 26% 17% 52% 100% Garbage collection 47% 41% 9% 3% 100% Recycling 47% 38% 12% 4% 100% Yard waste pick-up 15% 35% 23% 27% 100% Storm drainage 10% 50% 29% 10% 100% Drinking water 20% 57% 17% 5% 100% Sewer services 18% 57% 19% 6% 100% Power (electric and/or gas) utility 18% 60% 18% 4% 100% Town parks 27% 60% 13% 1% 100% Recreation programs or classes 19% 48% 30% 3% 100% Recreation centers or facilities 15% 42% 32% 11% 100% Land use, planning and zoning 3% 38% 43% 16% 100% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 4% 27% 37% 32% 100% Animal control 10% 51% 26% 13% 100% Economic development 6% 46% 35% 13% 100% Health services 9% 53% 30% 7% 100% Services to seniors 11% 33% 42% 14% 100% Services to youth 12% 50% 25% 13% 100% Services to low-income people 8% 34% 36% 22% 100% Public library services 44% 45% 10% 1% 100% Public information services 15% 49% 33% 3% 100% Public schools 28% 46% 23% 4% 100% Cable television 14% 47% 26% 13% 100% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 16% 59% 20% 6% 100% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 13% 53% 27% 7% 100% 60

63 Question 14: Government Services Overall Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The Town of Hooksett 18% 62% 18% 3% 100% The Federal Government 3% 32% 39% 26% 100% The State Government 3% 40% 42% 14% 100% Merrimack County Government 6% 41% 39% 14% 100% Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Question 15: Recommendation and Longevity Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Recommend living in Hooksett to someone who asks 44% 45% 7% 3% 100% Remain in Hooksett for the next five years 59% 26% 8% 7% 100% Total Question 16: Impact of the Economy What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent of respondents Very positive 3% Somewhat positive 14% Neutral 49% Somewhat negative 29% Very negative 4% Total 100% Question 17: Contact with Fire Department Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the Town of Hooksett Fire Department within the last 12 months? No Yes Total Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the Town of Hooksett Fire Department within the last 12 months? 75% 25% 100% Question 18: Ratings of Contact with Fire Department What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the Town of Hooksett Fire Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the Town of Hooksett Fire Department? 68% 30% 2% 0% 100% 61

64 Question 19: Contact with Town Employees Have you had any in-person, phone or with an employee of the Town of Hooksett within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? Percent of respondents No 26% Yes 74% Total 100% Question 20: Town Employees What was your impression of the employee(s) of the Town of Hooksett in your most recent contact? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Knowledge 52% 40% 7% 2% 100% Responsiveness 51% 38% 5% 6% 100% Courtesy 53% 36% 5% 6% 100% Overall impression 50% 38% 7% 6% 100% Question 21: Government Performance Please rate the following categories of Hooksett government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Hooksett 9% 47% 30% 13% 100% The overall direction that Hooksett is taking 7% 46% 35% 12% 100% The job Hooksett government does at welcoming citizen involvement 4% 39% 39% 18% 100% Question 22a: Custom Question 1 To what extent do you support or oppose increasing taxes and/or fees to ensure that Town services continue to be provided at current levels? Percent of respondents Strongly support 10% Somewhat support 39% Somewhat oppose 28% Strongly oppose 24% Total 100% Please indicate how important, if at all, each of the following projects and issues is for the Town to address: Question 22b: Custom Question 2 Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Constructing a third fire station 6% 17% 31% 45% 100% Preserving Old Town Hall 5% 15% 43% 37% 100% Total 62

65 Please indicate how important, if at all, each of the following projects and issues is for the Town to address: Question 22b: Custom Question 2 Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Opening Lilac Bridge (the old Village bridge) to foot traffic 8% 15% 36% 40% 100% Creating a Senior Center 11% 23% 43% 23% 100% Economic development initiatives 14% 44% 30% 12% 100% Preserving open space 22% 38% 35% 5% 100% Street maintenance and improvement 26% 49% 25% 0% 100% Drainage improvements 18% 40% 37% 5% 100% Building additional sidewalks 21% 26% 35% 17% 100% Parks maintenance and improvements 15% 31% 48% 7% 100% Increasing use of social media 9% 14% 42% 36% 100% Holding Town and School District elections on the same day 18% 33% 32% 16% 100% Total Question 22c: Custom Question 3 If the Town had to reduce services to cut costs, how much, if at all, do you think the Town should reduce the level of each of the following services? Reduce a lot Reduce somewhat Do not reduce Total Bulky item pick-up 37% 46% 17% 100% Code enforcement 7% 44% 49% 100% Fire services 2% 11% 87% 100% Parks maintenance 4% 57% 39% 100% Police services 2% 14% 84% 100% Special events (e.g., Old Home Day) 19% 50% 31% 100% Recycling 5% 28% 68% 100% Snow removal 1% 13% 86% 100% Recreational programs 14% 50% 36% 100% Sewer availability 8% 37% 55% 100% Library services 8% 38% 54% 100% Question D1: Employment Status Are you currently employed for pay? Percent of respondents No 27% Yes, full-time 63% Yes, part-time 10% Total 100% 63

66 Question D2: Mode of Transportation Used for Commute During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? Percent of days mode used Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) by myself 83% Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) with other children or adults 12% Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation 0% Walk 1% Bicycle 0% Work at home 5% Other 0% Question D3: Length of Residency How many years have you lived in Hooksett? Percent of respondents Less than 2 years 8% 2 to 5 years 20% 6 to 10 years 23% 11 to 20 years 22% More than 20 years 26% Total 100% Question D4: Housing Unit Type Which best describes the building you live in? Percent of respondents One family house detached from any other houses 70% House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) 16% Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 11% Mobile home 3% Other 1% Total 100% Question D5: Housing Tenure (Rent/Own) Is this house, apartment or mobile home Percent of respondents Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment 17% Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear 83% Total 100% 64

67 Question D6: Monthly Housing Cost About how much is the monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners" association (HOA) fees)? Percent of respondents Less than $300 per month 2% $300 to $599 per month 7% $600 to $999 per month 15% $1,000 to $1,499 per month 38% $1,500 to $2,499 per month 31% $2,500 or more per month 6% Total 100% Question D7: Presence of Children in Household Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent of respondents No 66% Yes 34% Total 100% Question D8: Presence of Older Adults in Household Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent of respondents No 74% Yes 26% Total 100% Question D9: Household Income How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent of respondents Less than $24,999 10% $25,000 to $49,999 21% $50,000 to $99,999 44% $100,000 to $149,999 16% $150,000 or more 8% Total 100% 65

68 Question D10: Ethnicity Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent of respondents No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 99% Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 1% Total 100% Question D11: Race What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent of respondents American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 4% Black or African American 1% White 95% Other 2% Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option Question D12: Age In which category is your age? Percent of respondents 18 to 24 years 2% 25 to 34 years 20% 35 to 44 years 20% 45 to 54 years 25% 55 to 64 years 12% 65 to 74 years 14% 75 years or older 8% Total 100% Question D13: Gender What is your sex? Percent of respondents Female 52% Male 48% Total 100% Question D14: Registered to Vote Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? Percent of respondents No 14% Yes 83% Ineligible to vote 3% Total 100% 66

69 Question D15: Voted in Last General Election Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did you vote in the last general election? Percent of respondents No 20% Yes 77% Ineligible to vote 3% Total 100% Question D16: Has Cell Phone Do you have a cell phone? Percent of respondents No 7% Yes 93% Total 100% Question D17: Has Land Line Do you have a land line at home? Percent of respondents No 29% Yes 71% Total 100% Question D18: Primary Phone If you have both a cell phone and a land line, which do you consider your primary telephone number? Percent of respondents Cell 39% Land line 45% Both 16% Total 100% 67

70 F R E Q U E N C I E S I N C L U D I N G DON T K N O W R E S P O N S E S These tables contain the percentage of respondents for each response category as well as the n or total number of respondents for each category, next to the percentage. Question 1: Quality of Life Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Hooksett: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Hooksett as a place to live 28% % % 54 1% 3 0% 1 100% 433 Your neighborhood as a place to live 34% % % 46 2% 10 0% 1 100% 432 Hooksett as a place to raise children 27% % % 45 1% 3 16% % 429 Hooksett as a place to work 11% 46 26% % 67 9% 39 39% % 428 Hooksett as a place to retire 12% 53 34% % 79 10% 45 25% % 429 The overall quality of life in Hooksett 21% 91 60% % 79 1% 3 0% 0 100% 432 Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Hooksett as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Sense of community 12% 50 49% % 112 7% 30 5% % 421 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 13% 56 40% % 101 6% 27 17% % 426 Overall appearance of Hooksett 8% 36 53% % 134 7% 31 0% 0 100% 431 Cleanliness of Hooksett 14% 60 57% % 110 3% 13 1% 2 100% 433 Overall quality of new development in Hooksett 11% 49 48% % 103 7% 31 9% % 428 Variety of housing options 10% 42 45% % 137 6% 24 8% % 429 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Hooksett 11% 45 56% % 113 6% 27 1% 6 100% 430 Shopping opportunities 15% 65 48% % 122 8% 36 0% 1 100% 432 Opportunities to attend cultural activities 3% 14 17% 72 37% % % % 429 Recreational opportunities 6% 24 35% % % 42 9% % 430 Employment opportunities 3% 12 14% 59 33% % 80 32% %

71 Question 2: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Hooksett as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Educational opportunities 8% 35 43% % 92 9% 39 Don't know Total 19% % 426 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 6% 26 32% % % 48 17% % 424 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 5% 21 34% % 124 5% 22 27% % 423 Opportunities to volunteer 8% 32 35% % 108 7% 31 25% % 428 Opportunities to participate in community matters 6% 25 35% % 137 8% 32 19% % 417 Ease of car travel in Hooksett 12% 53 34% % % 101 2% 9 100% 432 Ease of bus travel in Hooksett 1% 4 4% 19 15% 65 37% % % 426 Ease of bicycle travel in Hooksett 3% 11 13% 54 26% % % % 427 Ease of walking in Hooksett 5% 20 19% 80 29% % 161 9% % 425 Availability of paths and walking trails 7% 29 24% % % 83 13% % 430 Traffic flow on major streets 3% 11 22% 95 40% % 146 2% 8 100% 432 Amount of public parking 9% 38 27% % % 48 17% % 428 Availability of affordable quality housing 4% 19 30% % 151 8% 35 22% % 427 Availability of affordable quality child care 4% 17 18% 74 18% 76 6% 27 54% % 424 Availability of affordable quality health care 5% 22 32% % 109 9% 37 29% % 424 Availability of affordable quality food 12% 50 51% % 108 8% 34 4% % 426 Availability of preventive health services 8% 34 29% % 132 8% 33 25% % 426 Air quality 19% 81 50% % 84 2% 8 10% % 430 Quality of overall natural environment in Hooksett 15% 64 52% % 123 1% 6 3% % 431 Overall image or reputation of Hooksett 11% 49 46% % % 42 3% %

72 Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Hooksett over the past 2 years: Much too slow Question 3: Growth Somewhat too slow Right amount Somewhat too fast Much too fast Don't know Total Population growth 1% 4 5% 21 39% % 100 6% 26 26% % 429 Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 4% 16 31% % 201 7% 32 4% 18 6% % 426 Jobs growth 12% 50 29% % 71 0% 2 0% 2 42% % 425 Question 4: Code Enforcement To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Hooksett? Percent of respondents Count Not a problem 9% 37 Minor problem 38% 163 Moderate problem 33% 140 Major problem 15% 66 Don't know 5% 21 Total 100% 426 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Hooksett: Very safe Question 5: Community Safety Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 32% % % 56 5% 22 1% 3 2% 9 100% 429 Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 15% 65 50% % 77 12% 51 2% 10 3% % 428 Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 35% % % 63 3% 12 1% 2 10% %

73 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Question 6: Personal Safety Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total In your neighborhood during the day 71% % 106 3% 13 1% 5 0% 1 0% 0 100% 431 In your neighborhood after dark 38% % 198 9% 37 6% 26 1% 4 0% 1 100% 431 In Hooksett's downtown area during the day 51% % 131 5% 21 2% 7 0% 1 12% % 428 In Hooksett's downtown area after dark 21% 89 43% % 58 5% 20 1% 5 17% % 428 Question 7: Contact with Police Department Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the Town of Hooksett Police Department within the last 12 months? No Yes Don't know Total Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the Town of Hooksett Police Department within the last 12 months? 63% % 160 0% 0 100% 427 Question 8: Ratings of Contact with Police Department What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the Town of Hooksett Police Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the Town of Hooksett Police Department? 50% 78 27% 41 12% 18 11% 16 0% 0 100% 154 Question 9: Crime Victim During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Percent of respondents Count No 93% 397 Yes 7% 31 Don't know 0% 0 Total 100%

74 Question 10: Crime Reporting If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Percent of respondents Count No 3% 1 Yes 97% 25 Don't know 0% 0 Total 100% 25 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Hooksett? Never Question 11: Resident Behaviors Once or twice 3 to 12 times 13 to 26 times More than 26 times Total Used Hooksett public libraries or their services 27% % % % 43 10% % 428 Participated in a recreation program or activity 58% % 88 16% 66 3% 13 3% % 427 Visited a neighborhood park or Town park 19% 80 27% % % 53 8% % 427 Ridden a local bus within Hooksett 95% 405 1% 5 0% 1 1% 3 2% % 425 Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 69% % 82 10% 42 1% 2 2% 8 100% 426 Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other Townsponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 80% % 53 6% 26 1% 5 1% 2 100% 424 Read Hooksett Newsletter 18% 77 30% % % 47 6% % 418 Visited the Town of Hooksett Web site (at 27% % % 150 7% 31 4% % 425 Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 11% 47 5% 23 7% 29 7% 28 70% % 424 Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Hooksett 70% % 44 11% 46 2% 11 7% % 425 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Hooksett 69% % 52 7% 30 4% 16 8% % 423 Participated in a club or civic group in Hooksett 77% % 51 6% 24 3% 11 3% % 426 Provided help to a friend or neighbor 7% 28 19% 82 46% % 63 14% %

75 Question 12: Neighborliness About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? Percent of respondents Count Just about everyday 21% 91 Several times a week 32% 138 Several times a month 23% 99 Less than several times a month 24% 102 Total 100% 431 Question 13: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Hooksett: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Police services 28% % % 45 4% 16 10% % 427 Fire services 34% % 185 5% 22 1% 3 16% % 427 Ambulance or emergency medical services 27% % 159 4% 18 0% 0 32% % 425 Crime prevention 12% 53 43% % 56 4% 18 27% % 426 Fire prevention and education 13% 57 33% 140 8% 33 2% 7 44% % 424 Municipal courts 5% 22 20% 85 5% 22 5% 19 65% % 423 Traffic enforcement 12% 51 46% % 81 8% 35 14% % 420 Street repair 6% 24 29% % % 96 2% 8 100% 426 Street cleaning 9% 38 43% % 136 8% 35 7% % 422 Street lighting 5% 21 44% % % 66 1% 5 100% 421 Snow removal 20% 86 55% % 68 6% 27 3% % 424 Sidewalk maintenance 5% 21 29% % % 43 29% % 416 Traffic signal timing 8% 35 45% % % 56 3% % 419 Bus or transit services 2% 7 10% 41 6% 27 20% 82 62% % 416 Garbage collection 41% % 153 8% 35 3% 11 12% % 422 Recycling 42% % % 44 3% 14 11% %

76 Question 13: Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Hooksett: Excellent Good Fair Poor Yard waste pick-up 8% Don't know Total 35 20% 83 13% 53 15% 63 44% % 421 Storm drainage 9% 38 43% % 104 9% 38 15% % 423 Drinking water 19% 80 54% % 68 5% 19 6% % 421 Sewer services 14% 61 46% % 66 5% 21 19% % 423 Power (electric and/or gas) utility 18% 75 57% % 74 4% 16 4% % 425 Town parks 23% % % 48 1% 4 12% % 425 Recreation programs or classes 10% 43 25% % 66 1% 6 47% % 421 Recreation centers or facilities 8% 33 23% 95 17% 73 6% 24 47% % 420 Land use, planning and zoning 2% 8 24% 99 27% % 41 38% % 417 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 3% 13 20% 83 27% % % % 421 Animal control 6% 24 30% % 66 8% 34 41% % 424 Economic development 4% 19 34% % % 41 27% % 421 Health services 6% 24 34% % 81 4% 19 37% % 420 Services to seniors 4% 17 12% 51 15% 65 5% 22 63% % 420 Services to youth 6% 26 25% % 54 7% 28 49% % 423 Services to low-income people 3% 13 13% 53 14% 57 8% 34 62% % 414 Public library services 38% % 163 8% 35 1% 3 14% % 420 Public information services 11% 48 37% % 103 2% 10 25% % 420 Public schools 20% 85 33% % 69 3% 11 28% % 422 Cable television 12% 50 41% % 91 11% 46 14% % 413 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 10% 44 40% % 56 4% 17 33% % 419 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 8% 36 34% % 73 5% 19 36% %

77 Question 14: Government Services Overall Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The Town of Hooksett 17% 74 60% % 74 3% 11 2% % 426 The Federal Government 3% 12 26% % % 90 17% % 424 The State Government 3% 12 33% % % 51 17% % 425 Merrimack County Government 3% 15 24% % 97 8% 33 42% % 423 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Question 15: Recommendation and Longevity Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Recommend living in Hooksett to someone who asks 44% % 188 7% 31 3% 14 1% 4 100% 423 Remain in Hooksett for the next five years 57% % 107 8% 33 7% 28 3% % 425 Question 16: Impact of the Economy What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent of respondents Count Very positive 3% 13 Somewhat positive 14% 61 Neutral 49% 208 Somewhat negative 29% 125 Very negative 4% 18 Total 100%

78 Question 17: Contact with Fire Department Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the Town of Hooksett Fire Department within the last 12 months? No Yes Don't know Total Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the Town of Hooksett Fire Department within the last 12 months? 75% % 106 0% 0 100% 429 Question 18: Ratings of Contact with Fire Department What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the Town of Hooksett Fire Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the Town of Hooksett Fire Department? 68% 71 30% 31 2% 2 0% 0 0% 0 100% 105 Question 19: Contact with Town Employees Have you had any in-person, phone or with an employee of the Town of Hooksett within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? Percent of respondents Count No 26% 111 Yes 74% 315 Total 100% 426 Question 20: Town Employees What was your impression of the employee(s) of the Town of Hooksett in your most recent contact? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Knowledge 52% % 124 7% 21 2% 6 0% 0 100% 313 Responsiveness 51% % 118 5% 16 6% 19 0% 0 100% 313 Courtesy 53% % 112 5% 14 6% 20 0% 0 100% 313 Overall impression 49% % 118 7% 22 6% 17 0% 1 100%

79 Question 21: Government Performance Please rate the following categories of Hooksett government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor The value of services for the taxes paid to Hooksett 8% 35 43% % % 53 8% 34 Don't know Total 100% 427 The overall direction that Hooksett is taking 6% 26 42% % % 48 9% % 426 The job Hooksett government does at welcoming citizen involvement 3% 13 26% % % 52 32% % 425 Question 22a: Custom Question 1 To what extent do you support or oppose increasing taxes and/or fees to ensure that Town services continue to be provided at current levels? Percent of respondents Count Strongly support 8% 34 Somewhat support 33% 139 Somewhat oppose 23% 98 Strongly oppose 20% 84 Don't know 15% 64 Total 100% 419 Please indicate how important, if at all, each of the following projects and issues is for the Town to address Essential Question 22b: Custom Question 2 Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Don't know Total Constructing a third fire station 5% 22 15% 61 26% % % % 420 Preserving Old Town Hall 5% 21 14% 59 40% % 149 6% % 426 Opening Lilac Bridge (the old Village bridge) to foot traffic 8% 32 14% 59 33% % 155 9% % 423 Creating a Senior Center 10% 43 20% 85 38% % 87 11% % 422 Economic development initiatives 13% 53 39% % % 45 11% % 420 Preserving open space 21% 87 35% % 136 5% 21 8% % 425 Street maintenance and improvement 26% % % 104 0% 0 1% 6 100%

80 Please indicate how important, if at all, each of the following projects and issues is for the Town to address Essential Question 22b: Custom Question 2 Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Don't know Total Drainage improvements 17% 72 37% % 144 4% 19 8% % 424 Building additional sidewalks 20% 83 25% % % 69 5% % 422 Parks maintenance and improvements 14% 60 29% % 193 6% 27 4% % 420 Increasing use of social media 8% 32 13% 53 38% % % % 422 Holding Town and School District elections on the same day 16% 67 29% % % 60 13% % 426 Question 22c: Custom Question 3 If the Town had to reduce services to cut costs, how much, if at all, do you think the Town should reduce the level of each of the following services? Reduce a lot Reduce somewhat Do not reduce Total Bulky item pick-up 37% % % % 414 Code enforcement 7% 29 44% % % 411 Fire services 2% 8 11% 48 87% % 427 Parks maintenance 4% 18 57% % % 423 Police services 2% 9 14% 58 84% % 424 Special events (e.g., Old Home Day) 19% 80 50% % % 423 Recycling 5% 21 28% % % 426 Snow removal 1% 6 13% 56 86% % 426 Recreational programs 14% 59 50% % % 417 Sewer availability 8% 33 37% % % 419 Library services 8% 34 38% % %

81 Question D1: Employment Status Are you currently employed for pay? Percent of respondents Count No 27% 114 Yes, full-time 63% 265 Yes, part-time 10% 41 Total 100% 421 Question D2: Mode of Transportation Used for Commute During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? Percent of days mode used Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) by myself 83% Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) with other children or adults 12% Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation 0% Walk 1% Bicycle 0% Work at home 5% Other 0% Question D3: Length of Residency How many years have you lived in Hooksett? Percent of respondents Count Less than 2 years 8% 36 2 to 5 years 20% 88 6 to 10 years 23% to 20 years 22% 93 More than 20 years 26% 111 Total 100%

82 Question D4: Housing Unit Type Which best describes the building you live in? Percent of respondents Count One family house detached from any other houses 70% 299 House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) 16% 67 Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 11% 48 Mobile home 3% 13 Other 1% 2 Total 100% 429 Question D5: Housing Tenure (Rent/Own) Is this house, apartment or mobile home Percent of respondents Count Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment 17% 70 Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear 83% 348 Total 100% 418 Question D6: Monthly Housing Cost About how much is the monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners" association (HOA) fees)? Percent of respondents Count Less than $300 per month 2% 8 $300 to $599 per month 7% 30 $600 to $999 per month 15% 63 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 38% 157 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 31% 127 $2,500 or more per month 6% 26 Total 100%

83 Question D7: Presence of Children in Household Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent of respondents Count No 66% 282 Yes 34% 147 Total 100% 428 Question D8: Presence of Older Adults in Household Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent of respondents Count No 74% 320 Yes 26% 109 Total 100% 429 Question D9: Household Income How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent of respondents Count Less than $24,999 10% 41 $25,000 to $49,999 21% 87 $50,000 to $99,999 44% 177 $100,000 to $149,999 16% 66 $150,000 or more 8% 32 Total 100% 403 Question D10: Ethnicity Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent of respondents Count No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 99% 419 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 1% 3 Total 100%

84 Question D11: Race What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent of respondents Count American Indian or Alaskan Native 1% 3 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 4% 18 Black or African American 1% 2 White 95% 403 Other 2% 7 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option Question D12: Age In which category is your age? Percent of respondents Count 18 to 24 years 2% 9 25 to 34 years 20% to 44 years 20% to 54 years 25% to 64 years 12% to 74 years 14% years or older 8% 35 Total 100% 427 Question D13: Gender What is your sex? Percent of respondents Count Female 52% 223 Male 48% 204 Total 100%

85 Question D14: Registered to Vote Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? Percent of respondents Count No 14% 59 Yes 79% 337 Ineligible to vote 3% 12 Don't know 5% 20 Total 100% 429 Question D15: Voted in Last General Election Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did you vote in the last general election? Percent of respondents Count No 20% 84 Yes 76% 324 Ineligible to vote 3% 13 Don't know 1% 5 Total 100% 427 Question D16: Has Cell Phone Do you have a cell phone? Percent of respondents Count No 7% 31 Yes 93% 397 Total 100% 428 Question D17: Has Land Line Do you have a land line at home? Percent of respondents Count No 29% 126 Yes 71% 302 Total 100%

86 Question D18: Primary Phone If you have both a cell phone and a land line, which do you consider your primary telephone number? Percent of respondents Count Cell 39% 106 Land line 45% 123 Both 16% 43 Total 100%

87 Appendix B: Survey Methodology (The NCS ) was developed to provide local jurisdictions an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important community issues. While standardization of question wording and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, each jurisdiction has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The NCS that asks residents about key local services and important local issues. Results offer insight into residents perspectives about local government performance and as such provide important benchmarks for jurisdictions working on performance measurement. The NCS is designed to help with budget, land use and strategic planning as well as to communicate with local residents. The NCS permits questions to test support for local policies and answers to its questions also speak to community trust and involvement in community-building activities as well as to resident demographic characteristics. S U R V E Y V A L I D I T Y The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a jurisdiction be confident that the results from those who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey been administered to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do? To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire jurisdiction. These practices include: Using a mail-out/mail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. A higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than those who did respond. Selecting households at random within the jurisdiction to receive the survey. A random selection ensures that the households selected to receive the survey are similar to the entire population. A non-random sample may only include households from one geographic area, or from households of only one type. Over-sampling multi-family housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower income, or younger apartment dwellers. Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure; in this case, the birthday method. The cover letter included an instruction requesting that the respondent in the household be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a birthday, irrespective of year of birth. Contacting potential respondents three times to encourage response from people who may have different opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt. Soliciting response on jurisdiction letterhead signed by the highest ranking elected official or staff member, thus appealing to the recipients sense of civic responsibility. Providing a self-addressed, postage-paid return envelope. Offering the survey in Spanish when appropriate and requested by Town officials. Using the most recent available information about the characteristics of jurisdiction residents to weight the data to reflect the demographics of the population. The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are influenced by a variety of factors. For questions about service quality, residents expectations for 85

88 service quality play a role as well as the objective quality of the service provided, the way the resident perceives the entire community (that is, the context in which the service is provided), the scale on which the resident is asked to record his or her opinion and, of course, the opinion, itself, that a resident holds about the service. Similarly a resident s report of certain behaviors is colored by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g., reporting tolerant behaviors toward oppressed groups, likelihood of voting a tax increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to work besides the single occupancy vehicle), his or her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, like a vote), his or her confidence that he or she can be honest without suffering any negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity) as well as the actual behavior itself. How closely survey results come to recording the way a person really feels or behaves often is measured by the coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e.g., driving habits), reported intentions to behave with observed future behavior (e.g., voting choices) or reported opinions about current community quality with objective characteristics of the community (e.g., feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a body of scientific literature that has investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual behaviors. Well-conducted surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with great accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do reported behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g., family abuse or other illegal or morally sanctioned activities). For self-reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments can be made to correct for the respondents tendency to report what they think the correct response should be. Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and objective ratings of service quality tend to be ambiguous, some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC s own research has demonstrated that residents who report the lowest ratings of street repair live in communities with objectively worse street conditions than those who report high ratings of street repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair employees). Similarly, the lowest rated fire services appear to be objectively worse than the highest rated fire services (expenditures per capita, response time, professional status of firefighters, breadth of services and training provided). Whether or not some research confirms the relationship between what residents think about a community and what can be seen objectively in a community, NRC has argued that resident opinion is a perspective that cannot be ignored by government administrators. NRC principals have written, If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash haul is lousy, you still have a problem. S U R V E Y S A M P L I N G Sampling refers to the method by which survey recipients were chosen. All households within the Town of Hooksett were eligible to participate in the survey; 1,200 were selected to receive the survey. These 1,200 households were randomly selected from a comprehensive list of all housing units within the Town of Hooksett boundaries. The basis of the list of all housing units was a United States Postal Service listing of housing units within zip codes. Since some of the zip codes that serve the Town of Hooksett households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the jurisdiction, the exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to jurisdiction boundaries, using the most current municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis), and addresses located outside of the Town of Hooksett boundaries were removed from consideration. 86

89 Town of Hooksett 2013 To choose the 1,200 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households known to be within the Town of Hooksett. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all possible items is culled, selecting every Nth one until the appropriate amount of items is selected. Multi-family housing units were over sampled as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single-family housing units. FIGURE 93: LOCATION OF SURVEY RECIPIENTS 87

90 An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the person whose birthday has most recently passed to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. In response to the growing number of the cell-phone population (so-called cord cutters ), which includes a large proportion of young adults, questions about cell phones and land lines are included on The NCS questionnaire. As of the middle of 2010 (the most recent estimates available as of the end of 2010), 26.6% of U.S. households had a cell phone but no landline. 1 Among younger adults (age 18-34), 53.7% of households were cell-only. Based on survey results, Hooksett has a cord cutter population similar to the nationwide 2010 estimates. FIGURE 94: PREVALENCE OF CELL-PHONE ONLY RESPONDENTS IN HOOKSETT Overall 29% % % % 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents reporting having a "cell phone" only S U R V E Y A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning September 13, The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The next mailing contained a letter from the Town Administrator inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and a postage-paid return envelope. The final mailing contained a reminder letter, another survey and a postage-paid return envelope. The second cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who have already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. Completed surveys were collected over the following six weeks. S U R V E Y R E S P O N S E R A T E A N D C O N F I D E N C E I N T E R V A L S It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a level of confidence and accompanying confidence interval (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents' opinions are relied on to estimate all residents' opinions. The confidence interval for the Town of Hooksett survey is no greater than plus or minus five percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (434 completed surveys)

91 A 95% confidence interval indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, 95 of the confidence intervals created will include the true population response. This theory is applied in practice to mean that the true perspective of the target population lies within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75% of residents rate a service as excellent or good, then the 4% margin of error (for the 95% confidence interval) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire jurisdiction is between 71% and 79%. This source of error is called sampling error. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey, including the non-response of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results. For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the sample size for the subgroup is smaller. For subgroups of approximately 100 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points S U R V E Y P R O C E S S I N G (DATA E N T R Y) Completed surveys received by NRC were assigned a unique identification number. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and cleaned as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; NRC staff would choose randomly two of the three selected items to be coded in the dataset. Once all surveys were assigned a unique identification number, they were entered into an electronic dataset. This dataset was subject to a data entry protocol of key and verify, in which survey data were entered twice into an electronic dataset and then compared. Discrepancies were evaluated against the original survey form and corrected. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. S U R V E Y D A T A W E I G H T I N G The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2010 Census estimates and other population norms for adults in the Town of Hooksett. Sample results were weighted using the population norms to reflect the appropriate percent of those residents. Other discrepancies between the whole population and the sample were also aided by the weighting due to the intercorrelation of many socioeconomic characteristics. The variables used for weighting were housing unit type, housing tenure and sex and age. This decision was based on: The disparity between the survey respondent characteristics and the population norms for these variables The saliency of these variables in detecting differences of opinion among subgroups The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger population of the community. This is done by: 1) reviewing the sample demographics and comparing them to the population norms from the most recent Census or other sources and 2) comparing the responses to different questions for demographic subgroups. The demographic characteristics that are least similar to the Census and yield the most different results are the best candidates for data weighting. A third criterion sometimes used is the importance that the community places on a specific variable. For example, if a jurisdiction feels that accurate race representation is key to staff and public acceptance of the study results, additional consideration will be given in the weighting process to adjusting the race variable. 89

92 A special software program using mathematical algorithms is used to calculate the appropriate weights. Data weighting can adjust up to five demographic variables. Several different weighting schemes may be tested to ensure the best fit for the data. The process actually begins at the point of sampling. Knowing that residents in single family dwellings are more likely to respond to a mail survey, NRC oversamples residents of multi-family dwellings to ensure their proper representation in the sample data. Rather than giving all residents an equal chance of receiving the survey, this is systematic, stratified sampling, which gives each resident of the jurisdiction a known chance of receiving the survey (and apartment dwellers, for example, a greater chance than single family home dwellers). As a consequence, results must be weighted to recapture the proper representation of apartment dwellers. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the following table. Housing Hooksett, NH 2013 Citizen Survey Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm 1 Unweighted Data Weighted Data Rent home 17% 12% 17% Own home 83% 88% 83% Detached unit 73% 59% 73% Attached unit 27% 41% 27% Race and Ethnicity White 96% 95% 93% Not white 4% 5% 7% Not Hispanic 98% 99% 99% Hispanic 2% 1% 1% White alone, not Hispanic 95% 95% 93% Hispanic and/or other race 5% 5% 7% Sex and Age Female 52% 56% 52% Male 48% 44% 48% years of age 22% 9% 22% years of age 44% 33% 44% 55+ years of age 34% 58% 34% Females % 5% 11% Females % 20% 22% Females % 31% 19% Males % 4% 11% Males % 13% 22% Males % 27% 15% 1 Source: 2010 Census/ ACS 90

93 S U R V E Y D A T A A N A L Y S I S A N D R E P O R T I N G The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Frequency distributions were presented in the body of the report. Use of the Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor Response Scale The scale on which respondents are asked to record their opinions about service and community quality is excellent, good, fair or poor (EGFP). This scale has important advantages over other scale possibilities (very good to very bad; very satisfied to very dissatisfied; strongly agree to strongly disagree, as examples). EGFP is used by the plurality of jurisdictions conducting citizen surveys across the U.S. The advantage of familiarity was one that NRC did not want to dismiss when crafting questionnaire, because elected officials, staff and residents already are acquainted with opinion surveys measured this way. EGFP also has the advantage of offering three positive options, rather than only two, over which a resident can offer an opinion. While symmetrical scales often are the right choice in other measurement tasks, NRC has found that ratings of almost every local government service in almost every jurisdiction tend, on average, to be positive (that is, above the scale midpoint). Therefore, to permit finer distinctions among positively rated services, EGFP offers three options across which to spread those ratings. EGFP is more neutral because it requires no positive statement of service quality to judge (as agreedisagree scales require) and, finally, EGFP intends to measure absolute quality of service delivery or community quality (unlike satisfaction scales which ignore residents perceptions of quality in favor of their report on the acceptability of the level of service offered). Don t Know Responses On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer don t know. The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. B e n chmark C o mparisons NRC has been leading the strategic use of surveys for local governments since 1991, when the principals of the company wrote the first edition of what became the classic text on citizen surveying. In Citizen Surveys: how to do them, how to use them, what they mean, published by ICMA, not only were the principles for quality survey methods articulated, but both the idea of benchmark data for citizen opinion and the method for gathering benchmark data were pioneered. The argument for benchmarks was called In Search of Standards. What has been missing from a local government s analysis of its survey results is the context that school administrators can supply when they tell parents how an 80 percent score on the social studies test compares to test results from other school systems... NRC s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services. Conducted with typically no fewer than 400 residents in each jurisdiction, opinions are intended to represent over 30 million Americans. NRC has innovated a method for quantitatively integrating the results of surveys that are conducted by NRC with those that others have conducted. The integration methods have been thoroughly described not only in the Citizen Surveys book, but also in Public Administration Review, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Scholars who specialize in the analysis of citizen surveys regularly have relied on this work (e.g., Kelly, J. & 91

94 Swindell, D. (2002). Service quality variation across urban space: First steps towards a model of citizen satisfaction. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, ; Van Ryzin, G., Muzzio, D., Immerwahr, S., Gulick, L. & Martinez, E. (2004). Drivers and consequences of citizen satisfaction: An application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Model to New York City, Public Administration Review, 64, ). The method described in those publications is refined regularly and statistically tested on a growing number of citizen surveys in NRC s proprietary databases. NRC s work on calculating national benchmarks for resident opinions about service delivery and quality of life won the Samuel C. May award for research excellence from the Western Governmental Research Association. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each jurisdiction; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. T h e Role o f C o mparisons Benchmark comparisons are used for performance measurement. Jurisdictions use the comparative information to help interpret their own citizen survey results, to create or revise community plans, to evaluate the success of policy or budget decisions and to measure local government performance. Taking the pulse of the community has little meaning without knowing what pulse rate is too high and what is too low. When surveys of service satisfaction turn up good citizen evaluations, jurisdictions need to know how others rate their services to understand if good is good enough. Furthermore, in the absence of national or peer community comparisons, a jurisdiction is left with comparing its fire protection rating to its street maintenance rating. That comparison is unfair. Streets always lose to fire. More important and harder questions need to be asked; for example, how do residents ratings of fire service compare to opinions about fire service in other communities? A police department that provides the fastest and most efficient service one that closes most of its cases, solves most of its crimes and keeps the crime rate low still has a problem to fix if the residents in the community it intends to protect believe services are not very good compared to ratings given by residents to their own objectively worse departments. The benchmark data can help that police department or any department to understand how well citizens think it is doing. Without the comparative data, it would be like bowling in a tournament without knowing what the other teams are scoring. NRC recommends that citizen opinion be used in conjunction with other sources of data about budget, personnel and politics to help managers know how to respond to comparative results. Jurisdictions in the benchmark database are distributed geographically across the country and range from small to large in population size. Most commonly, comparisons are made to the entire database. Comparisons may also be made to subsets of jurisdictions (for example, within a given region or population category). Despite the differences in jurisdiction characteristics, all are in the business of providing local government services to residents. Though individual jurisdiction circumstances, resources and practices vary, the objective in every community is to provide services that are so timely, tailored and effective that residents conclude the services are of the highest quality. High ratings in any jurisdiction, like SAT scores in any teen household, bring pride and a sense of accomplishment. C o mparison o f H ooksett to the B e nchmark D a tabase The Town of Hooksett chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. A benchmark comparison (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was 92

95 asked) has been provided when a similar question on the Town of Hooksett Survey was included in NRC s database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. For most questions compared to the entire dataset, there were more than 100 jurisdictions included in the benchmark comparison. Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the Town of Hooksett s results were generally noted as being above the benchmark, below the benchmark or similar to the benchmark. For some questions those related to resident behavior, circumstance or to a local problem the comparison to the benchmark is designated as more, similar or less (for example, the percent of crime victims, residents visiting a park or residents identifying code enforcement as a problem.) In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of much, (for example, much less or much above ). These labels come from a statistical comparison of the Town of Hooksett's rating to the benchmark where a rating is considered similar if it is within the margin of error; above, below, more or less if the difference between your jurisdiction s rating and the benchmark is greater the margin of error; and much above, much below, much more or much less if the difference between your jurisdiction s rating and the benchmark is more than twice the margin of error. 93

96 Appendix C: Survey Materials The following pages contain copies of the survey materials sent to randomly selected households within the Town of Hooksett. 94

97 Dear Hooksett Resident, It won t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better Town! Sincerely, Dear Hooksett Resident, It won t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better Town! Sincerely, Dean E. Shankle, Jr. Town Administrator Town of Hooksett Dean E. Shankle, Jr. Town Administrator Town of Hooksett Dear Hooksett Resident, It won t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better Town! Sincerely, Dear Hooksett Resident, It won t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping create a better Town! Sincerely, Dean E. Shankle, Jr. Town Administrator Town of Hooksett Dean E. Shankle, Jr. Town Administrator Town of Hooksett

98 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 Town of Hooksett Administration Department 35 Main Street Hooksett, NH Town of Hooksett Administration Department 35 Main Street Hooksett, NH Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO. 94 Town of Hooksett Administration Department 35 Main Street Hooksett, NH Town of Hooksett Administration Department 35 Main Street Hooksett, NH 03106

99 Town of Hooksett ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT Dean E. Shankle, Jr., Ph.D. Town Administrator September 2013 Dear Town of Hooksett Resident: The Town of Hooksett wants to know what you think about our community and municipal government. You have been randomly selected to participate in Hooksett s 2013 Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed Citizen Survey. Your feedback will help the Town set benchmarks for tracking the quality of services provided to residents. Your answers will help the Town Council make decisions that affect our community. You should find the questions interesting and we will definitely find your answers useful. Please participate! To get a representative sample of Hooksett residents, the adult (anyone 18 years or older) in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. Year of birth of the adult does not matter. Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes to answer all the questions and return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Your responses will remain completely anonymous. Your participation in this survey is very important especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. If you have any questions about the Citizen Survey please call Please help us shape the future of Hooksett. Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, Dean E. Shankle, Jr. Town Administrator 35 Main Street Hooksett, New Hampshire Tel (603) Fax (603) Website:

100 Town of Hooksett ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT Dean E. Shankle, Jr., Ph.D. Town Administrator September 2013 Dear Town of Hooksett Resident: About one week ago, you should have received a copy of the enclosed survey. If you completed it and sent it back, we thank you for your time and ask you to recycle this survey. Please do not respond twice. If you have not had a chance to complete the survey, we would appreciate your response. The Town of Hooksett wants to know what you think about our community and municipal government. You have been randomly selected to participate in the Town of Hooksett s Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed Citizen Survey. Your feedback will help the Town set benchmarks for tracking the quality of services provided to residents. Your answers will help the Town Council make decisions that affect our community. You should find the questions interesting and we will definitely find your answers useful. Please participate! To get a representative sample of Hooksett residents, the adult (anyone 18 years or older) in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. Year of birth of the adult does not matter. Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes to answer all the questions and return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Your responses will remain completely anonymous. Your participation in this survey is very important especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. If you have any questions about the Citizen Survey please call Please help us shape the future of Hooksett. Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, Dean E. Shankle, Jr. Town Administrator 35 Main Street Hooksett, New Hampshire Tel (603) Fax (603) Website:

101 The Town of Hooksett 2013 Citizen Survey Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult's year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or checking the box) that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Hooksett: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Hooksett as a place to live Your neighborhood as a place to live Hooksett as a place to raise children Hooksett as a place to work Hooksett as a place to retire The overall quality of life in Hooksett Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Hooksett as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Sense of community Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds Overall appearance of Hooksett Cleanliness of Hooksett Overall quality of new development in Hooksett Variety of housing options Overall quality of business and service establishments in Hooksett Shopping opportunities Opportunities to attend cultural activities Recreational opportunities Employment opportunities Educational opportunities Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities Opportunities to volunteer Opportunities to participate in community matters Ease of car travel in Hooksett Ease of bus travel in Hooksett Ease of bicycle travel in Hooksett Ease of walking in Hooksett Availability of paths and walking trails Traffic flow on major streets Amount of public parking Availability of affordable quality housing Availability of affordable quality child care Availability of affordable quality health care Availability of affordable quality food Availability of preventive health services Air quality Quality of overall natural environment in Hooksett Overall image or reputation of Hooksett Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Hooksett over the past 2 years: Much Somewhat Right Somewhat Much Don't too slow too slow amount too fast too fast know Population growth Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) Jobs growth Page 1 of 5

102 4. To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Hooksett? Not a problem Minor problem Moderate problem Major problem Don t know 5. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Hooksett: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) Environmental hazards, including toxic waste Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day In your neighborhood after dark In Hooksett's downtown area during the day In Hooksett's downtown area after dark Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the Town of Hooksett Police Department within the last 12 months? No Go to Question 9 Yes Go to Question 8 Don t know Go to Question 9 8. What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the Town of Hooksett Police Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don t know 9. During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? No Go to Question 11 Yes Go to Question 10 Don t know Go to Question If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? No Yes Don t know 11. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Hooksett? Once or 3 to to 26 More than Never twice times times 26 times Used Hooksett public libraries or their services Participated in a recreation program or activity Visited a neighborhood park or Town park Ridden a local bus within Hooksett Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other Town-sponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media Read Hooksett Newsletter Visited the Town of Hooksett Web site (at Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Hooksett Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Hooksett Participated in a club or civic group in Hooksett Provided help to a friend or neighbor About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? Just about every day Several times a week Several times a month Less than several times a month National Research Center, Inc. Page 2 of 5

103 The Town of Hooksett 2013 Citizen Survey 13. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Hooksett: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Police services Fire services Ambulance or emergency medical services Crime prevention Fire prevention and education Municipal courts Traffic enforcement Street repair Street cleaning Street lighting Snow removal Sidewalk maintenance Traffic signal timing Bus or transit services Garbage collection Recycling Yard waste pick-up Storm drainage Drinking water Sewer services Power (electric and/or gas) utility Town parks Recreation programs or classes Recreation centers or facilities Land use, planning and zoning Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) Animal control Economic development Health services Services to seniors Services to youth Services to low-income people Public library services Public information services Public schools Cable television Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know The Town of Hooksett The Federal Government The State Government Merrimack County Government Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don t likely likely unlikely unlikely know Recommend living in Hooksett to someone who asks Remain in Hooksett for the next five years What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative Page 3 of 5

104 17. Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the Town of Hooksett Fire Department within the last 12 months? No Go to Question 19 Yes Go to Question 18 Don t know Go to Question What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the Town of Hooksett Fire Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don t know 19. Have you had any in-person, phone or contact with an employee of the Town of Hooksett within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? No Go to Question 21 Yes Go to Question What was your impression of the employee(s) of the Town of Hooksett in your most recent contact? (Rate each characteristic below.) Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Knowledge Responsiveness Courtesy Overall impression Please rate the following categories of Hooksett government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know The value of services for the taxes paid to Hooksett The overall direction that Hooksett is taking The job Hooksett government does at welcoming citizen involvement Please check the response that comes closest to your opinion for each of the following questions: a. As you probably know, your votes at the Town and School District meetings directly determine the tax rate. Given that, to what extent do you support or oppose increasing taxes and/or fees to ensure that Town services continue to be provided at current levels? Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Don t know b. Please indicate how important, if at all, each of the following projects and issues is for the Town to address: Very Somewhat Not at all Don t Essential important important important know Constructing a third fire station Preserving Old Town Hall Opening Lilac Bridge (the old Village bridge) to foot traffic Creating a Senior Center Economic development initiatives Preserving open space Street maintenance and improvement Drainage improvements Building additional sidewalks Parks maintenance and improvements Increasing use of social media Holding Town and School District elections on the same day c. If the Town had to reduce services to cut costs, how much, if at all, do you think the Town should reduce the level of each of the following services? Reduce Reduce Do not a lot somewhat reduce Bulky item pick-up Code enforcement Fire services Parks maintenance Police services Special events (e.g., Old Home Day) Recycling Snow removal Recreational programs Sewer availability Library services National Research Center, Inc. Page 4 of 5

105 The Town of Hooksett 2013 Citizen Survey Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. D1. Are you currently employed for pay? No Go to Question D3 Yes, full time Go to Question D2 Yes, part time Go to Question D2 D2. During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? (Enter the total number of days, using whole numbers.) Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) by myself... days Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) with other children or adults... days Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation... days Walk... days Bicycle... days Work at home... days Other... days D3. How many years have you lived in Hooksett? Less than 2 years years 2-5 years More than 20 years 6-10 years D4. Which best describes the building you live in? One family house detached from any other houses House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) Building with two or more apartments or condominiums Mobile home Other D5. Is this house, apartment or mobile home... Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment? Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear? D6. About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners association (HOA) fees)? Less than $300 per month $300 to $599 per month $600 to $999 per month $1,000 to $1,499 per month $1,500 to $2,499 per month $2,500 or more per month D7. Do any children 17 or under live in your household? No Yes Page 5 of 5 D8. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? No Yes D9. How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Less than $24,999 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more Please respond to both questions D10 and D11: D10. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino D11. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander Black or African American White Other D12. In which category is your age? years years years years years 75 years or older years D13. What is your sex? Female Male D14. Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? No Ineligible to vote Yes Don t know D15. Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Did you vote in the last general election? No Ineligible to vote Yes Don t know D16. Do you have a cell phone? No Yes D17. Do you have a land line at home? No Yes D18. If you have both a cell phone and a land line, which do you consider your primary telephone number? Cell Land line Both Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502

106 Town of Hooksett Administration Department 35 Main Street Hooksett, NH Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PAID Boulder, CO Permit NO.94